If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

NATIVES - Neil - Jun 17

NATIVES
For the last several years it has become a cultural vogue in the fisheries departments across this country to eliminate so called "non-native" species in favor of historically native species. This policy has resulted in viable populations of fish being totally eradicated in favor of a species that were historically present.

You would define or justify the discussion/decision with quoted regulations and Websters.

I would not.

Keep in mind, Websters has changed numerous times since 1828 and most regulations are of a partisan and political gene pool.

Native American? I have to agree with Neil. My ancestors all came here long before the revolutionary war. SO I consider myself a much "Native American" as any other....with the mode of transportation (ship vs land bridge) being the only difference. Definitions are often used both ways in order to support or refute a particular argument.

Eradicating a viable species that is thriving, after the environment has already adjusted to it is not just wrong, but borders on criminal. They are taking a chance on destroying an entire ecosystem because of some perceived notion of 'purity'. Here's a flash...you can't go back. Even eradicating the newer species will not necessarily restore the waters to what they were before. The ecosystem has already been irrevocably changed, forever. All you do is even more damage.

By their reasoning, then we shouldn't be allowed to fish for carp, brown trout (introduced from Europe in the 1880s), or bass and crappie (range greatly extended by stocking programs, making them a 'non-native' species throughout most of their current range). Oh, and cottontail rabbits would be also have to be eradicated, to the detriment of all the predators that have adjusted to having them for dinner. How about Nutria? Without them, hydrilla would choke off a lot of otherwise great fishing waters.

This madness needs to stop. We fund most of the so-called 'conservation' attempts in this country, and we should have a say in the matter. Write your elected officials.

This is certainly a hot button issue with quite the discussion for both sides. In Maine we've begun to see a distinction with "Native" vs "Wild" brook trout and that distinction is being used in the management and fishing regulations in those waters with in the state. I for one am a fan of the native fish species, and would prefer to have the native fish over the exotics. But I won't turn my nose to them either, the way I see it the current species of fish are in the water systems and you may as well fish for them. I say maintain the status quo and do everything possible to prevent new introductions of fish species despite it being a losing battle. Agencies should be tailoring regulations to protect species if they are in danger of losing a species, but everything has to be a trade off.